Sunday Downtime - All Evolve Media Sites are being migrated to a new data center Sunday Dec 11, 2016. The migration will occur during an 8 AM to 2 PM (Pacific Time) maintenance window. We will have up to 1 hour of downtime for any of our sites.

The History of HockeyRelive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

This is what I posted before, though overpass's advanced stats would show more or less the same thing:

That's from the middle of last season, so I'm sure the rankings would have changed a little.

The only possible way to put Housley over Lidstrom is to say that he had more offensive talent but didn't get to show it as often because he got less ice time due to terrible defense. I don't think I'd buy that, as I'm sure Housley (unlike Lidstrom) mostly got offensive zone draws when he was on the ice.

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue it too hard. I was never a fan of Housley's game to begin with.
However, while Housley's not clearly above Lidstrom offensively. I find it hard to say that Lidstrom is clearly above Housley either.
They're pretty close on purely offensive level.

I find it a hard pill to swallow on the Lidstrom peer to peer dominance thing. The only peers ahead of Housley offensively are also all ahead of Lidstrom offensively.

But while we're discussing Bourque's 1993-94, did you know Lidstrom outscored him at ES that year?

May wanna go back a few pages and look at all the responses that particular cherry pick got

And I'm pretty sure you're talking about Lidstrom's 99/00 season vs Bourque's 93/94 because in 93/94 Lidstrom scored 6 less ES points in 12 more games than Bourque that year.
BTW, it was also Bourque's 3rd lowest total of ES points in a season in 15 years to that point
It was also only one of three seasons in Lidstrom's entire career where he equaled or scored more ES points in a season than Bourque did in 93/94.

If we were to look up the definition of cherry picking right now, it would have a link to that post of yours

May wanna go back a few pages and look at all the responses that particular cherry pick got

And I'm pretty sure you're talking about Lidstrom's 99/00 season vs Bourque's 93/94 because in 93/94 Lidstrom scored 6 less ES points in 12 more games than Bourque that year.
BTW, it was also Bourque's 3rd lowest total of ES points in a season in 15 years to that point
It was also only one of two seasons in Lidstrom's entire career where he equaled or scored more ES points in a season than Bourque did in 93/94.

Fair enough, I'm not going to argue it too hard. I was never a fan of Housley's game to begin with.
However, while Housley's not clearly above Lidstrom offensively. I find it hard to say that Lidstrom is clearly above Housley either.
They're pretty close on purely offensive level.

I find it a hard pill to swallow on the Lidstrom peer to peer dominance thing. The only peers ahead of Housley offensively are also all ahead of Lidstrom offensively.

Now you're subjectively declaring that you "feel" Lidstrom is equal to Housley offensively.

You went from using statistics from different eras to show that Bourque was a better scorer, even though Lidstrom was the best from his era and his era captured all of the world's best players. You appear to have discarded, or at least set aside, that position in favor of "It just feels like Bourque was a lot better, mmkay?"

Interesting how you trot out PPG in any thread mentioning Yzerman but have conveniently forgotten it twice now in three posts about Lidstrom.

I said outscored. I didn't say out-PPGed.

And even so, a stay at home defenseman in his third season compared with an offense-first defenseman in his prime who plays significantly more minutes (and may have played more actual minutes despite games missed), and there's a projected 4-point difference at ES?

And even so, a stay at home defenseman in his third season compared with an offense-first defenseman in his prime who plays significantly more minutes (and may have played more actual minutes despite games missed), and there's a projected 4-point difference at ES?

Now you're subjectively declaring that you "feel" Lidstrom is equal to Housley offensively.

I changed my mind because Devil made a rational and coherent argument. You should give that a try some time

Quote:

You went from using statistics from different eras to show that Bourque was a better scorer, even though Lidstrom was the best from his era and his era captured all of the world's best players. You appear to have discarded, or at least set aside, that position in favor of "It just feels like Bourque was a lot better, mmkay?"

Actually, the early to mid 90's is quite easily the deepest and most tightly packed in talent the league has ever been.
All those Russian and Czech players suddenly coming over and there was only 22-26 teams.
(Gee, I wonder who was universally the best D-man during this talent packed time?)

And when exactly is Lidstrom's Era? Does it start the day Al MacInnis retired after '03 or when Leetch retires after '06?

This is what I posted before, though overpass's advanced stats would show more or less the same thing:

That's from the middle of last season, so I'm sure the rankings would have changed a little.

The only possible way to put Housley over Lidstrom is to say that he had more offensive talent but didn't get to show it as often because he got less ice time due to terrible defense. I don't think I'd buy that, as I'm sure Housley (unlike Lidstrom) mostly got offensive zone draws when he was on the ice.

Well, the European comment could be irrelevant, as Housley had to deal with all the American talent.

How about the quality of teammates? That Housley was very close to Lidstrom in overall scoring despite having the no-doubt worst talent surrounding him. If I recall, post 1968, Orr, Coffey, and Robinson are clearly ahead in the ESGF/Game (adjusted) category. Then, Lidstrom, Bourque, Housley, Park, Salming, Lapointe, Potvin, Leetch, and Stevens are all very close to each other. We tend to/should upgrade players like Bourque and Salming because they played with poor supporting casts, while we downgrade Lidstrom, Potvin, and Leetch because they were surrounded with fantastic talent.

On the PP, I recall that Macinnis is the best all time after Orr, followed by Leetch, Housley, and then everyone mashed together.

Rather than just saying what we all remembered, here are the numbers overpass posted for defensemen we have been discussing.

Here are all the post-expansion defensemen to become eligible in the first 4 rounds of voting in the defensemen project

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen

Career Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1968

1979

596

49%

2.15

1.09

75

55

96%

1.52

63%

0.76

Larry Robinson

1973

1992

1384

43%

1.60

1.34

35

19

49%

1.14

45%

0.85

Denis Potvin

1974

1988

1060

43%

1.49

1.23

40

41

86%

1.18

53%

0.82

Ray Bourque

1980

2001

1612

42%

1.37

0.95

39

39

87%

1.11

58%

0.88

Chris Chelios

1984

2010

1651

39%

1.27

1.18

27

20

52%

1.02

57%

0.85

Vyacheslav Fetisov

1990

1998

546

33%

1.33

1.21

28

8

27%

1.03

27%

0.92

Nicklas Lidstrom

1992

2011

1494

40%

1.40

1.18

33

34

72%

1.25

52%

0.80

Prime Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Bobby Orr

1969

1975

514

50%

2.21

1.10

80

56

96%

1.59

67%

0.74

Denis Potvin

1976

1984

623

44%

1.65

1.41

44

47

95%

1.36

56%

0.74

Larry Robinson

1977

1986

731

48%

1.66

1.35

40

28

66%

1.20

58%

0.83

Ray Bourque

1982

1996

1081

43%

1.47

0.93

44

39

89%

1.09

58%

0.84

Chris Chelios

1988

1998

803

44%

1.33

1.21

30

30

79%

0.99

61%

0.86

Nicklas Lidstrom

1998

2008

801

42%

1.42

1.18

36

38

78%

1.27

61%

0.78

Stats GlossaryEV%: The percentage of the teamís even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The teamís GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The teamís GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the teamís power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the playerís team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the teamís power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the playerís team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.

What does it all mean?

These defencemen are all among the best of all time, so there aren't a lot of critical comments to make. Orr, Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom are the four modern defencemen who I think were elite in all situations, so it's fitting that they are all up for the vote now. Chelios and Robinson were a step down as offensive players, with Robinson providing more offence at even strength.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Bobby Orr was the best at everything. Ever. His even-strength impact was unparalleled, as the only player with a GF/GA ratio over 2 for his career. On the power play, he scored tons of points on a dominant Bruins power play, and he played the most minutes on a great Bruins penalty kill also. Even if you take a little air out of the numbers to adjust for the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL, he's an easy pick for best defenceman ever, and a serious contender for best player ever. Note that his career numbers do not include his rookie year in 66-67.

Denis Potvin was a great defenceman in all aspects of the game, and the numbers bear that out. Compared to these other defencemen? Even-strength numbers are behind Orr, Bourque, Robinson, and maybe Lidstrom, but ahead of Chelios. On the power play, he may have been the 2nd best of this group at his best (Bourque and Lidstrom might dispute that.) His penalty killing numbers are also great, but I can't really separate this group of d-men on the PK by the numbers - they were all great.

Larry Robinson had outstanding even-strength numbers first and foremost. His career +720 is excellent no matter how much you adjust it for team strength, and his even strength scoring was comparable to Bourque and Potvin (if well behind Orr.) His career special teams numbers are a bit lower because he started off on a loaded Habs team and played until he was the oldest player in the league. Looking at just his prime numbers, his PK numbers are up there with the rest of the group, but he was a step down on the power play.

Ray Bourque was great in all situations for a very long time. It was hard to select a prime for him, because he was outstanding for so long. His career even-strength plus-minus numbers are second only to Orr's after adjusting for team strength. He's another contender for 2nd best PP D-man behind Orr -in addition to the point production, he was outstanding at holding the blueline and preventing SH goals.

Chris Chelios probably fits better with the next group of players, in my opinion, because his offensive game was the worst of any defenceman here. But he was an outstanding defensive defenceman for a very long time, who also brought some pretty good offence in his prime. May have had the most defensive role of anyone here in terms of tough matchups and faceoff locations, which would hurt his plus-minus. You could argue he's as good as anyone here on the penalty kill.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is included here for the sake of completeness, but it's clear he was past his prime in the NHL.

Nicklas Lidstrom was also outstanding in all situations. His even-strength numbers are a step down from Bourque's. (Some might argue that's because the style of play changed to make it more difficult for offensive defencemen to shine.) During his prime, Detroit had the best power play and penalty kill in the league by quite a bit, and he was a major part of both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen

Career Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Brad Park

1969

1985

1115

42%

1.40

1.20

36

32

80%

1.16

43%

0.84

Paul Coffey

1981

2001

1409

43%

1.23

1.21

46

35

78%

1.13

28%

0.82

Al MacInnis

1982

2004

1416

38%

1.41

1.12

32

42

86%

1.18

39%

0.93

Prime Stats

Player

Start (Prime)

End (Prime)

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

$PPP/S

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Brad Park

1970

1978

613

47%

1.53

1.26

46

35

84%

1.23

49%

0.82

Paul Coffey

1982

1987

458

45%

1.47

1.39

60

38

83%

1.19

34%

0.69

Al MacInnis

1989

2003

1043

41%

1.42

1.11

34

42

88%

1.20

43%

0.92

What does it all mean?

Now that some of the great all-around defencemen are out of the way, some of the candidates start to show some weaknesses.

Brad Park was very good at everything. I think he was probably a notch below the best on the power play (Coffey, MacInnis, Potvin from this group), and probably a notch below the best penalty killers (Chelios, Robinson, Potvin from this group). And maybe Larry Robinson was better at even strength. Park was an all-rounder.

Paul Coffey was an offensive defenceman, in the positive and negative sense. His even strength point totals were through the roof. So were his even strength goals against totals. He was a great power play quarterback (although not a clear #2 overall, as he was for overall blueline scoring.) On the penalty kill, he was a contributor and a shorthanded threat, but not a defensive mainstay.

Al MacInnis was an incredible power play weapon first and foremost. Arguably top-5 ever among all players in that aspect of the game. He has some gaudy plus-minus numbers as well, but notice that those came in a smaller role (as measured by EV%) than the rest of the d-men here. MacInnis probably saw his plus-minus boosted by playing in fewer shutdown matchup situations and in more offensive zone situations, compared to most other d-men here. His penalty killing numbers show that his defensive play was fine but not a strength when compared to the other players listed here. MacInnis also had great longevity, with two of the best age 35+ seasons ever in 98-99 and 02-03.

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen

Career Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-OFF

R-ON

$ESP

PPP

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Scott Stevens

1983

2004

1635

42%

1.31

1.19

31

14

40%

0.94

56%

0.88

Brian Leetch

1988

2006

1205

45%

1.06

0.97

36

39

87%

1.12

50%

1.03

Chris Pronger

1994

2011

1154

39%

1.22

0.99

27

29

67%

1.12

54%

0.91

Prime Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-OFF

R-ON

$ESP

PPP

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Brian Leetch

1989

1997

632

45%

1.20

1.06

40

41

91%

1.18

51%

0.95

Scott Stevens

1988

2003

1212

42%

1.34

1.20

31

14

38%

0.93

63%

0.89

Chris Pronger

1998

2007

587

42%

1.43

1.00

32

36

72%

1.20

61%

0.82

What does it all mean?

Scott Stevens developed into an outstanding defensive defenceman over his career. In the mid-90s, he moved into a defensive role, and New Jersey probably leveraged him in defensive situations more than any other defenceman ever. Hard matchups, hard minutes all the time. He still managed to post good plus-minus numbers relative to team. He also played a huge part in New Jersey's strong penalty kill. Stevens could still move the puck as a defensive defenceman, he just wasn't used on the power play or counted on for offence.

Brian Leetch was, like Coffey and MacInnis, an offensive defenceman. His plus-minus numbers are fairly poor compared to this level of defenceman. In his defence, he was probably asked to do more than he should have in New York, playing huge minutes in all situations without a lot of help on the back end. He's one of the group of players you could make a case for as the second best defenceman on the PP (behind Orr). Played big minutes on the penalty kill, with poor team results. Again, probably a case of being pushed into a bigger role than he was suited for, in my opinion.

Chris Pronger is my sleeper pick as a modern defenceman who was maybe better than you think. Very good on the power play. Excellent plus-minus numbers, while playing shutdown minutes in St Louis, Edmonton, and Philadelphia. (In Anaheim, Niedermayer and Beauchemin played the toughest minutes). His defensive partners at ES have been pretty ordinary over the years too, with the exception of the occasional shift with MacInnis or Niedermayer. Great penalty killer who was big, smart, mobile, and strong.

Pronger was at his best in the late 90s/early 00s, when he was the total package. Injuries in the early 00s slowed him down a bit, and he played a more conservative, defensive game at even strength in the past few years. He remains an excellent outlet passer and a strong power play presence. Pronger's biggest drawback? Injuries cost him a lot of regular season games in his prime.

I'll stop before this turns into an advocacy post for Pronger...or maybe it's too late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass

Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen

Career Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP

PPP

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Serge Savard

1968

1983

1038

43%

1.44

1.52

25

9

24%

1.32

58%

0.82

Borje Salming

1974

1990

1148

43%

1.14

0.82

31

22

62%

0.98

55%

1.09

Prime Stats

Player

Start

End

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP

PPP

PP%

TmPP+

SH%

TmSH+

Serge Savard

1970

1979

651

45%

1.72

1.67

28

13

34%

1.33

65%

0.76

Borje Salming

1976

1982

527

46%

1.26

0.83

41

32

81%

1.07

58%

1.04

What does it all mean?

Serge Savard is an interesting contrast with Borje Salming, in terms of team situation. Really, it's very difficult to compare them based on these numbers. Savard played on a dominant, all-time great team, and Salming played on probably the weakest teams of any candidate yet.

At even strength, Savard played big minutes and played the toughest defensive assignments. His team had outstanding results whether he was on or off the ice. He had a minor role on the power play, usually on the second unit (he was never on the ice for as many as half of his team's power play goals.) He was a great penalty killer, playing a major role on a great Montreal unit.

Borje Salming played on a weak team, but had excellent plus-minus numbers relative to his team. I wonder to what degree he and Ian Turnbull played the tough assignments, or if they were in more of an offensive role. Salming played a lot of minutes in all situations during his prime. His team results were below-average on both special teams, but it's hard to penalize him too much for that.

Savard and Salming's numbers both dropped off around 1980. This is more understandable for Savard, as he was 33 years old, had played a lot of playoff games, and had major knee injuries during his career. What about Salming? He was about 30 years old when his numbers (scoring and plus-minus) dropped off. Was it nagging injuries? Being forced to take on a more defensive role on a bad team? Tougher competition in the 1980s? Salming ended up playing until the age of 38, which was unusual at the time and is to his credit.

Note on Salming's prime years: I left out 1974 and 1975 because he played fewer minutes in those seasons (EV% of 39%, PP% of 46%, SH% of 57%.) But he was voted a second-team all-star in 1975, and was +38 in 1974, so you might choose to include those seasons in his prime.

Scott Stevens developed into an outstanding defensive defenceman over his career. In the mid-90s, he moved into a defensive role, and New Jersey probably leveraged him in defensive situations more than any other defenceman ever. Hard matchups, hard minutes all the time. He still managed to post good plus-minus numbers relative to team. He also played a huge part in New Jersey's strong penalty kill. Stevens could still move the puck as a defensive defenceman, he just wasn't used on the power play or counted on for offence.

Player

Seasons

GP

EV%

R-ON

R-OFF

$ESP/S

PP%

TmPP+

$PPP/S

SH%

TmSH+

Scott Stevens

1985-94

756

45%

1.28

1.17

37

61%

0.94

24

49%

0.94

Scott Stevens

1995-03

686

40%

1.35

1.22

27

22%

0.94

6

71%

0.86

Stevens' power play role all but disappeared in the "defensive" part of his career. His penalty killing role went from "typical first-unit d-man" to "historically high". Even strength GF and GA dropped a bit, possibly because he was playing a more defensive style (ESP dropped). His overall plus-minus ratios rose along with his team.

He played some centre in his first two years in Buffalo, and in the following two years was a bit of a power-play specialist, playing bottom-pairing minutes at even strength. He had a solid 10-year prime as one of the top scoring defencemen in the league before his scoring numbers dropped off to the 40-50 point level.

Very few defencemen played more than Housley on the power play. Here are the leading defencemen in career PP%, minimum 1000 GP post-expansion.

Player

GP

PP%

Ray Bourque

1612

87%

Brian Leetch

1205

87%

Denis Potvin

1060

86%

Al MacInnis

1416

86%

Phil Housley

1495

84%

And very few established NHL defencemen played less time on the penalty kill. Here are the 1000 GP post-expansion defencemen with the lowest SH%.

Player

GP

SH%

Phil Housley

1495

11%

Sergei Gonchar

1058

21%

Fredrik Olausson

1022

22%

Petr Svoboda

1047

25%

Ed Jovanovski

1019

25%

His special teams numbers are interesting not only in and of themselves, but also because they give an idea of what type of player he was.

But I have to give him credit - among post-1980 defencemen, only Coffey, Bourque, and Leetch had better adjusted even-strength points in their prime. On the power play, Housley's numbers were behind Coffey, Bourque, Leetch, Lidstrom, and Gonchar, and similar to Reinhart, Suter, Pronger, Zubov, Markov, and Boyle. Was Housley (relatively) better at even-strength scoring because he traded defence for offence more than others? Or because his power play teammates weren't as good?

Sergei Zubov was a very good offensive defenceman for a long time. He went from being poor defensively to being a useful defender later in his career, and was a plus defender under post-lockout rules when skating ability became more important than size and strength.

But he never really had a big season where he was a legitimate Norris contender.

Rather than just saying what we all remembered, here are the numbers overpass posted for defensemen we have been discussing.

Here are all the post-expansion defensemen to become eligible in the first 4 rounds of voting in the defensemen project

Here are the numbers for Zubov and Housley:

Hmm. I remember a different study by Overpass. It had Bourque at 1.17 per game and Lidstrom at 1.19. Salming at 1.17, Macinnis at 1.1, Chelios at 1.0. Orr at 1.81. Just some of the numbers. That is the one I was quoting. Or maybe I am mixing some up.

In any case, my memory seems to be decently accurate. Thanks for finding it.

Keep in mind that players with longer primes (like Lidstrom and Bourque) will be probably be underrated by a "per game" metric like this

Salming was at 41 for his peak. Which adds some validity to the arguement that Salming was superior to Lidstrom offensively when both were at their best. Surely one can imagine someone who only saw Salming during his prime making this claim...

Keep in mind that players with longer primes (like Lidstrom and Bourque) will be probably be underrated by a "per game" metric like this

What is particularly interesting about this list is how players like Pronger and Salming fare despite not having played on the best teams vs. players like Lidstrom and Robinson, who almost always were on incredibly dominant teams.

Here are the numbers side by side (prime). You had a bunch of the numbers wrong. I plugged in the rights ones, I think! I added twp columns. One with the numbers added together, and one with ES + .5PP points, just since that seems to make sense.

ES

PP

+

pp/2

Orr

80

56

136

108

Coffey

60

38

98

79

Potvin

44

47

91

67.5

Park

46

35

81

63.5

Bourque

44

39

83

63.5

Leetch

40

41

81

60.5

Housley

41

38

79

60

Salming

41

32

73

57

Lidstrom

36

38

74

55

MacInnis

34

42

76

55

Robinson

40

28

68

54

Pronger

32

36

68

50

Zubov

29

35

64

46.5

Chelios

30

30

60

45

Stevens

31

14

45

38

Savard

28

13

41

34.5

Interesting. Lidstrom looks good, but not great. Considering that he's definitely had better talent surrounding him than Pronger, the results don't support his inclusion in the top 10 offensive d-men of all time. I suspect that if we could normalize for environment, Potvin would look closer to 60, Bourque closer to 70, Lidstrom closer to 50, etc.

You had a bunch of the numbers wrong. I plugged in the rights ones, I think!

Er.... unless I'm missing something, your numbers are only different from the ones I posted for Phil Housley. And my numbers are the same as what I copied and pasted from overpass.

I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said overpass's numbers would show Lidstrom with an advantage over Housley offensively - they are effectively tied. Though I'm of the opinion that the adjusted numbers inflate the totals of defensemen in the 80s and 90s a little bit because of the changing role of the position.

Quote:

I added twp columns. One with the numbers added together, and one with ES + .5PP points, just since that seems to make sense.

I strongly disagree that powerplay points are only worth half of even strength points. A goal is a goal.

Quote:

Interesting. Lidstrom looks good, but not great. Considering that he's definitely had better talent surrounding him than Pronger, the results don't support his inclusion in the top 10 offensive d-men of all time.

Pronger spent the majority of his prime playing next to Al MacInnis on the powerplay. He later spent some time next to Scott Niedermayer. Lidstrom never had PP partners that good. For some of the time Pronger had MacInnis, he also had Tkachuk, one of the best regular season PP goal scorers of all-time. I don't think it's at all clear that Lidstrom had more offensive talent surrounding him. Wings were deeper, but I'd take the help Pronger had on the PP in both St. Louis and Anaheim over what Lidstrom had in Detroit.

Quote:

I suspect that if we could normalize for environment, Potvin would look closer to 60, Bourque closer to 70, Lidstrom closer to 50, etc.

God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think Bourque was definitely a better even strength producer than Lidstrom (he also took more chances). But I don't think it's clear at all that he was better on the powerplay.

Making the assumption that Fetisov was the superior offensive talent, that puts Lidstrom solidly in 9th place, not even counting players like Shore, Clancy, Harvey, Kelly, etc.

Assuming you want to rank guys on career per-game averages (which I think is problematic), there is nothing "solid" about the 1 point per 82 game difference that separates all of Nicklas Lidstrom, Phil Housley, Brad Park, and Sergie Zubov. By this metric you'd have to call those 4 basically equal offensively - though notice that Lidstrom saw quite a bit less PP time than the other 3, especially Housley and Zubov.

Quote:

Not very meaningful since primes are so short for these players. Interesting to see how Murphy does in that short span....

Yeah, lots of offensive opportunities with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr will do that to a guy.

Er.... unless I'm missing something, your numbers are only different from the ones I posted for Phil Housley. And my numbers are the same as what I copied and pasted from overpass.

I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said overpass's numbers would show Lidstrom with an advantage over Housley offensively - they are effectively tied. Though I'm of the opinion that the adjusted numbers inflate the totals of defensemen in the 80s and 90s a little bit because of the changing role of the position.

Check again. Your salming numbers were off...

Quote:

I strongly disagree that powerplay points are only worth half of even strength points. A goal is a goal.

Doesn't really change the order of the numbers.

Quote:

Pronger spent the majority of his prime playing next to Al MacInnis on the powerplay. He later spent some time next to Scott Niedermayer. Lidstrom never had PP partners that good. For some of the time Pronger had MacInnis, he also had Tkachuk, one of the best regular season PP goal scorers of all-time. I don't think it's at all clear that Lidstrom had more offensive talent surrounding him. Wings were deeper, but I'd take the help Pronger had on the PP in both St. Louis and Anaheim over what Lidstrom had in Detroit.

Would be interesting to compare pp goals scored on vs off.

Quote:

God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think that that gap is mitigated by the quality of the teams pp...at least partially.

Assuming you want to rank guys on career per-game averages (which I think is problematic), there is nothing "solid" about the 1 point per 82 game difference that separates all of Nicklas Lidstrom, Phil Housley, Brad Park, and Sergie Zubov. By this metric you'd have to call those 4 basically equal offensively - though notice that Lidstrom saw quite a bit less PP time than the other 3, especially Housley and Zubov.

How about the quality of teams? I was also looking at primes, which gives Housley and Park a boost.

Quote:

Yeah, lots of offensive opportunities with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr will do that to a guy.